I don’t get squeamish watching a bris take place. And I’ve seen my fair share. However, I have been getting squeamish lately over the many news items concerning the legality and morality of ritual circumcision, a required Jewish life-cycle event for thousands of years.
When discussing brit milah (Jewish ritual circumcision), I believe it is important to be open and honest. I firmly believe that this mitzvah (commandment) is of paramount importance to the Jewish people and that we must ensure that it is done safely throughout the world to ensure that it continues for generations to come.
iStockPhoto
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recently published a report revealing that a total of 11 newborn males were infected by the herpes simplex virus in New York City between November 2000 and December 2011. Of these 11 cases, the parents of 6 of the newborns acknowledged that the mohel (ritual circumcisor) had performed metzitza b’peh during the bris. Metzitza b’peh is when the mohel places his mouth directly on the newly circumcised penis and sucks blood away from the wound. The vast majority of physicians have ruled that this aspect of the brit milah ritual must be forbidden for the obvious health risks involved.
Many people presume that only the most ultra-Orthodox communities still include metzitza b’peh in the bris ceremony. However, this month I heard of a bris that took place at Keter Torah Synagogue, a local Sephardic congregation in West Bloomfield, Michigan in which the mohel in fact performed metzitza b’peh. It is imperative that Jewish physicians and other Jewish professionals in the health care industry as well as rabbis insist that metzitza b’peh is no longer practiced. The health risks are evident and with Jewish ritual circumcision under attack, it is unwise to allow an unhealthy and dangerous aspect of the ritual to persist.
Just one year ago, there was a ballot measure to ban circumcision in San Francisco. That measure would have outlawed circumcision on males younger than 18, except in cases of medical necessity. No religious exemptions would be permitted according to this measure. While that measure was shot down, a German court this week banned the circumcision of young boys for religious reasons. This ban on ritual circumcision applies to the Cologne region of Germany. According to MSNBC:
The court in the western city of Cologne handed down the decision on Tuesday in the case of a doctor who was prosecuted for circumcising a four-year-old Muslim boy. The doctor circumcised the boy in November 2010 and gave him four stitches, the Guardian reported. When the boy started bleeding two days later, his parents took him to Cologne’s University hospital, where officials called police. The doctor was ultimately acquitted on the grounds that he had not broken a law. The court ruled that involuntary religious circumcision should be made illegal because it could inflict serious bodily harm on people who had not consented to it. The ruling said boys who consciously decided to be circumcised could have the operation. No age restriction was given, or any more specific details.
The Central Council of Jews in Germany called the ruling an “unprecedented and dramatic intrusion” of the right to religious freedom and an “outrageous and insensitive” act.
Several Conservative Jewish groups including Masorti Olami, Masorti Europe and the Rabbinical Assembly of Europe have joined with the Central Council of Jews in Germany in condemning the decision of the district Court in Cologne. In a joint statement, they explained:
The circumcision of 8 day old male babies remains an important and meaningful rite in the lives of Jews all over the world. No other country has outlawed circumcision and this new legal decision impinges upon the religious freedom of Germany’s citizens be they Jewish or Muslim and the rights of other parents who wish to circumcise their sons.
A brit milah, as the circumcision ceremony is called in Hebrew, is one of the first mitzvot (or commandments) that God asks of Abraham. Just as Abraham observed the commandment, so too have his Jewish descendants over 1000s of years. While the Masorti movement consistently balances the needs of modernity against the needs of halacha or Jewish Law, there is no overwhelming proof that the circumcision of newborn boys causes any “irreversible damage against the body” as stated in the German court’s decision. On the contrary, medical research has shown that circumcision can reduce the risk of HIV infection, penile cancer and other urinary tract diseases.
The over 1.7 Million people in the 900 congregations and organizations in 45 countries represented by the Masorti (Conservative) Worldwide Movement call upon the Government of Germany to quickly work to reverse this grievous course of curtailing religious freedoms and dictating fundamental actions of faith communities.
Source: etsy.com
It is my belief that a war is being waged on ritual circumcision. In order for it to be preserved for future generations there must be compromise. We must be honest that it is an odd religious ritual in the 21st century, but it is a core part of both the Jewish and Muslim religions. In order to try to curtail some of the controversy surrounding brit milah, I propose the following:
1) Any individual who will perform a brit milah must have a signed certificate that they went through a course of training in which health and safety guidelines were learned.
2) Any individual who will perform a brit milah must sign an agreement that metzitza b’peh will not be performed under any circumstances as it endangers the livelihood of the infant boy.
It must also be acknowledged that ritual circumcision is a medical procedure and it is unique in that it is most often performed in a living room or synagogue. I would love it if there were some certification program in which mohalim had to be re-certified every ten years to ensure compliance. Brit milah is often learned through an apprenticeship and there’s nothing to ensure that an elderly mohel is still physically able to perform the ritual adequately.
Finally, we must acknowledge that the idea of friends and family gathered in a living room watching a newborn baby undergo a medical procedure is not for everyone. Conceding that brit milah should be performed in a hospital would only encourage parents to have the circumcision performed before the required eighth day and that is not advisable. Rather, mohalim should give the option of performing the brit milah in a more private setting and then the religious ceremony can take place for the larger assembly. While this would alter the traditional nature of the brit milah ceremony, it would also guarantee that there’s an understanding that the ritual is also a medical procedure that deserves both privacy and a safe and sanitary environment.
By continuing to pretend that there’s nothing odd about a newborn baby boy having a surgical procedure in a living room in front of dozens who eagerly wait for the bagel and lox spread to open is a mistake. We must acknowledge that this is a unique religious ritual in the 21st century. We must admit that there is some pain for the infant, but that it is not long lasting (an anesthetic should be encouraged but not required). We must ensure that there is some uniform compliance on the part of the practitioner (mohel) for the sake of the health and safety of the baby. And we must insist on a complete ban on metzitza b’peh with no exceptions.
With these guidelines in place, we will be better positioned to counter any legislation — whether in San Francisco or in Germany — that could put Jewish ritual circumcision in jeopardy.

I remember when I was a college student and my own rabbi's mother passed away suddenly right before Rosh Hashanah. On the holiday I approached him and asked if it was correct for me to still offer him a greeting of 'shanah tovah'. He said that it was especially important that he was offered such a wish, because it would be a difficult year for him as he was in mourning, but he hoped that it would still be a good year.

I recall that memory from my youth whenever there is a death in my community right before a holiday. I still make it a point to offer my wishes for a happy holiday, but also offer the caveat, that I know right now the family is not thinking about happiness or joy. Sometimes I say that I hope they have an enjoyable holiday (or festival), despite their feelings of sorrow over the loss of a loved one.

Generally speaking, it's always good to follow your heart. If your intuition tells you that it would be inappropriatae to wish a mourner a "Happy Holiday," then simply offer your condolences.

Question: I was never given a Hebrew name. My father is a non-Jew and my mother is a Jew. I understand that the last part of the Hebrew name is the first part of the father's Hebrew name. What would the method be for determining my Hebrew name be?
[Administrator's note: A related question is found at http://www.jewishvaluesonline.org/question.php?id=298.]

If your mother is Jewish, then you are uncategorically a member of the Jewish people and would not require conversion. Historically, Jewish tradition would base your Hebrew name on that of your mother only and according to the Talmud (Babylonian Talmud, Yevamot 98a) would consider you with a father of unknown origin so his name wouldn't be included in your Hebrew name formula (for when you're called up for an aliyah to the Torah.

In modern time, I would advise you to include your father's English name if that is your preference (along with your mother's Hebrew name of course). If your father is a follower of a religion other than Judaism, it might be awkward to include his name when you're called up for an aliyah so you should consider that when making the decision.

That's a very good, but challenging question. Any question that begins with "Why does God..." raises some difficult theological questions. One might even ask if God does indeed allow bad things to happen to good people. Therefore, we can say that God doesn't allow people to be enslaved, but rather that humans are free to choose whether they will feel prejudice toward the "other" and whether they will enslave others. It is certainly a shame that history hasn't taught some people a lesson that slavery is wrong. There are still humans who are enslaved around the world. We believe that this is not what God wants of us and we should work to combat this crime. Indeed, there are human rights groups (including in the Jewish community) that try to end human slavery and human trafficking around the world. This is our role as Jews to be an or lagoyim (a light to the other nations) and to practive tzedek (justice).

So long as the non-dairy Vegan cheese is labeled either "pareve" or it does not have a "DE" indicating it was produced with equipment also used for dairy. In many cases if there is a reliable kosher symbol (hekhsher) and it does not have a "D" for dairy (or state "Dairy" outright), it can be assumed that the product is kosher-pareve.

If it is pareve, the non-dairy Vegan cheese could be used with meat and it would be considered kosher. There are some who are concerned about "marit ayin" -- that it would look like a non-kosher dish, so to avoid that concern one should announce that the dish is a meat dish with pareve cheese.

I'm not sure how the topic of eating kitniyot (legumes) on Pesach fits into the general theme of Jewish values, but I'll answer your question anyway.

Kitniyot is the Hebrew term for the category of food known as legumes. They include rice, corn, soy beans, string beans, peas, lentils, mustard, poppy seeds... and yes even sesame seeds as you ask about. I don't think people are making flour out of peas, lentils, mustard or poppy seeds either by the way.

None of these products can become chametz, which is forbidden on Pesach, and yet most (a decreasing number I presume) Ashkenazi Jews do not eat them on Pesach because an Ashkenazi rabbinic authority ruled that they look like chametz products and could therefore be confused as such.

In other words, it's difficult to tell the difference between flour made from rice and wheat flour, which would be chametz. It seemed like a safe idea to just prohibit all kitniyot.

Today, in Israel it is much easier for those who eat kitniyot on Pesach because of the labeling on food products. In the Diaspora there are not as many products labeled 'Kosher for Passover for those who eat kitniyot'. More and more Ashkenazi Jews are beginning to eat products made from kitniyot on Pesach, including soy milk and hummus.

It is important to add that while there is a law barring Jews from even owning and benefiting from chametz products on Pesach that is not the case with kitniyot. Ashkenazi Jews who do not eat kitinyot on Pesach may still feed their pets products that contain kitniyot.

Question: My wife and I have no sexual relations, which I find frustrating. Masturbating has become the norm. I feel that divorce may be necessary, because I am missing the closeness of a relationship. I am Jewish and she is not.
What do you advise?

First, I am sorry to hear that you and your wife are experiencing marital problems. Sexual relations between marital partners is very important to the success of a marriage and Judaism highly encourages an active sex life among married couples. Before considering a divorce, I would encourage you and your wife to seek out a good marriage counselor with a trusted reputation. Discussing your marital challenges with the counselor or therapist could help turn your marriage around. I wish you the best of luck and certainly hope you can work this out. If you can't make this work and divorce is the only option then I hope you and your wife are able to go down that path in the most amicable way.

You're making an assumption that there was an "original health rationale" concerning the law forbidding the eating of milk and meat together. While you are not the first person to assume that this particular kosher law was based on a concern over health, it was never the intention.

From the verse in the Torah commanding that it is forbidden to "boil a kid in its mother's milk." (Ex. 23:19; Ex. 34:26; Deut. 14:21), we derive the kashrut law that we don't mix dairy products with meat products. In fact, we wait between eating those categories of food.

There are several reasons why we follow the kashrut laws, but health benefits does not appear to be one of them. There are many foods that are kosher (and even staples in the Jewish diet) that are not healthy for us. Sometimes we just have to follow the laws of the Torah without understanding the rationale.

There's no reason why you shouldn't take this position, but you should be aware of certain Halachic (Jewish legal) issues. In fact it might not be a bad idea to put up a sign with the following rules as an ongoing reminder. The first and most important rule to follow is that you can't do something that most chefs do: taste test. Since you observe kashrut and you're cooking non-kosher food, you might have the reflexive action of tasting what you're cooking. So, if you feel that it would be impossible to cook food for this non-Jewish client without taste testing then you should respectfully turn down the offer.

Further, there are certain things from which a Jewish person may not derive any benefit (Hebrew: hana'ah). The cooked mixture of meat and milk can't be done for a Jewish person's benefit. Thus, if your client requested a meal that includes milk and meat cooked together, you should refuse. This law is known as basar b’chalav assur b’hana’ah. Incidentally, this prohibition does not apply to mixtures which are only forbidden by the rabbis of the Talmud such as poultry cooked with milk, or meat and milk mixed together without cooking].

Passover would also be an issue in this situation. On the eight days of the Passover holiday you would not be allowed to derive any benefit from cooking with hametz (leavened products). So, your choice would be to either take a vacation during Passover or see if your client(s) was willing to eat Pesadik food for the week.

If you follow these few rules, I believe that taking this position as a personal chef in a non-kosher kitchen would be acceptable.

Rabbi Jason Miller is the founder and director of Kosher Michigan, a kashrut certification agency. Through KM, Rabbi Miller promotes the observance of kashrut by supervising and certifying select institutions, vendors and products that meet strict standards. KM seeks to bring more options into the local marketplace and make kosher certification a trusted, affordable and sensible option for businesses.

Question: I wanted to ask if it is okay for an observant (e.g. Orthodox) Jew to watch TV and use the internet (my internet browser does have a filter on it). I watch TV, but am careful with what I watch, as I don't want to watch series or movies that are inappropriate for any reason (vile language or other things). But is it against Jewish law to watch TV and use the internet? I ask because I know there are (ultra) Orthodox Jews who are completely against it. What does Judaism say? Thanks in advance for answering!

Somehow the Internet has gotten a bad reputation in the ultra-Orthodox world. Are there graphic and vulgar things on the Web? Yes. But such things can be accessed in other ways and in other media as well.

If you are seriously concerned that you won't be able to control yourself from venturing to websites that are of a graphic nature, then the Internet filter is a good thing. However, it's also important to remember that we humans should work to control our urges. If you know there are things on the Web that would be immoral or immodest for you to see, work hard at gaining the self-control to not visit those sites.

The same could be said about televisions. You can enjoy watching sporting events, documentaries, and news shows on TV. You should try to exercise the self-control to not view such movies or TV shows that would be categorized as explicit or immodest.

In a recent article, I explained that the Ultra-Orthodox (Haredi) Jews are actually correct in their belief that the Internet is dangerous. I didn't mean that the inappropriate material on the Web poses a threat, but rather the content that challenges their core beliefs and is easily accessible on the Web is what actually is dangerous to their way of life.

New technology is all around us and the limits of modesty are certainly pushed with the Web and cable television, but it should be a value to exhibit the control to not violate our own code of ethics by viewing inappropriate material.

Question: My mother isn't/wasn't Jewish, my father is. I was raised Reform, had a bat mitzvah, [was Jewishly educated, celebrated holidays, identify as Jewish, participated in the Jewish community, did not participate in or celebrate any other faith or religion,] etc. If I have children with a man recognized as fully Jewish, how would they be seen in the eyes of Israel and the American Jewish community (particularly the Conservative movement)? How stable are Israel's laws around this -- could they change in 10 years? What about halachah (Jewish law)? I would really appreciate an answer, even if it's not what I want to hear. Thank you!

I have answered dozens of questions from this website. I haven’t dodged a single question and I’ve attempted to respond to each questioner in a timely fashion. Admittedly, I have procrastinated writing a response to this question for several months.

Why? Because I am a Conservative rabbi and this is perhaps the most challenging question that a Conservative rabbi can be asked in the beginning of the 21st century. My Reform and Orthodox colleagues were able to respond to this question in a much more timely fashion. The Reform rabbi is able to cite his movement’s historic 1983 resolution establishing that “if the child is raised exclusively as a Jew and one parent is Jewish, then the child is recognized as a Jew in Reform communities regardless of the gender of the Jewish parent.” The Orthodox rabbi frames his answer with words like “difficult” and “painful” but ultimately cites Halacha (Jewish law) as unable to recognize the children (or grandchildren) of a Jewish man and non-Jewish woman as Jews without benefit of conversion.

Like many Conservative rabbis this issue hits home with me. I have a first cousin who, by definition, is not considered Jewish according to Halacha. That means that according to the Conservative Movement’s Rabbinical Assembly, of which I’m a member, I am not permitted to officiate at her wedding should she marry an individual deemed Jewish according to Halacha. That marriage would be considered an intermarriage without a formal conversion, and the children of that marriage would not be considered Jewish from a Halachic definition. This cousin has been raised Jewish, attended Hebrew School, became a bat mitzvah in a Reform congregation, and considers herself Jewish. To complicate matters, her younger brother underwent a formal conversion in the mikveh after having a bris on the eighth day and is therefore regarded as Jewish according to Halacha. I’m not sure that there could be a more confusing example of the mess that has been created with Jewish identity in the modern American Jewish world.

Before making any recommendations as to how to resolve this issue or how I will respond to the question above, it is important to understand that the Reform Movement’s 1983 resolution allowing patrilineal descent didn’t create this mess, but it did complicate it further. In the almost 30 years since that decision, there has been much crossover between the Conservative and Reform movements in America. Thus, when the Reform movement issued its resolution (which was in the works for over 35 years), it might have thought the implications would be wholly positive and would really only impact Reform Jews (the resolution specifies “in Reform communities”). However, that resolution has had negative impacts on both the Conservative and Modern Orthodox movements. The question of “Who’s a Jew” has less implications for the Orthodox Jews in America as it is unusual for them to marry outside of their sect. It is when a Modern Orthodox or Conservative young person wants to marry an individual who has been considered Jewish through the Reform movement’s notion of patrilineal descent that we are posed with the problem. Jewish young people in these more liberal denominations interact throughout adolescence and the college years in youth groups, summer camps, Israel trips, and college Hillels. Additionally, following college Jewish communal organizations like Federation and B’nai Brith do not distinguish between patrilineal Jews and matrilineal Jews at young adult singles’ events.

We are now facing head on the inter-denominational challenges that have arisen from the Reform movement’s resolution as the children of that era are now of marriage age and having their own children. In response to the question above, I would respond as follows:

There is no question that you have been raised in a family that has embraced Judaism, Jewish culture, and Jewish values. You have grown up identifying as a Jewish person and because of your father’s Jewish heritage, you have a claim to the birthright of the Jewish people. The Reform denomination of Judaism, in which you have affiliated, acknowledges you as a full-fledged member of the Jewish people for all purposes. Should you marry a man who is Jewish through matrilineal descent, it would be advisable that you undergo a formal conversion so there would be no Halachic issues concerning your children’s Jewish identity.

Matters surrounding Israel’s legal system as it pertains to Jewish identity should not be an issue for you unless you plan to immigrate to Israel and become a citizen. Should that be the case, I would advise you to inquire about those issues at that time and not worry about them now. Like all civil laws, they have the ability to change over time based on Israel’s government at the time and the authority and opinion of the Chief Rabbinate.

As you acknowledged, this might not be the answer you want to hear, but at this time it is the reality. A conversion for someone in your situation (raised Jewishly who identifies as Jewish) is intended to make your Judaism more legitimate from a Halachic perspective. It should not be understood as undermining your religious identity throughout your life. It is a conversion in a different category than an individual becoming Jewish from another religion altogether. Consider it a technicality.

My ultimate goal is to remove such problems in the future so these painful questions don’t arise in the future. It is first important to acknowledge that this is a matter full of nuance and the American Jewish community is made up of very different communities who will never agree on most issues. That being said, this issue must be resolved for Jews from the more liberal movements of modern Judaism (Reform, Reconstructionist, Conservative, Modern Orthodox) whose followers are marrying each other and raising families together.

Over the years, there have been several recommendations to fix this matter. Some have suggested mass conversions for all Jewish children before bar or bat mitzvah. Others have recommended that all brides and grooms go to the mikveh as a form of conversion before the wedding to assure Halachic Jewish status.

My proposal is to set a time limit on the status quo. Until the year 2020, matrilineal descent is the only accepted form of passing Jewish status genetically. Jewish individuals who are raised Jewish in a home with a Jewish father and identify as Jewish are to be considered Jewish from a cultural perspective, but must undergo a formal conversion for recognition as Jewish from a Halachic understanding.

After the year 2020, it will be understood that because of modern genetic testing (DNA tests) it is now possible to ascertain patrilineality with complete certainty. Therefore, a Jewish individual with at least one Jewish parent will be considered Jewish from a Halachic perspective for all matters. While the Orthodox will not agree to this, it will not have the same negative implications as the fissure between the Reform and Conservative movements that has existed for the past three decades.

The leaders of the American Jewish community should begin collaborating on such a partnership agreement. Only if we are on the same page on the matter of Jewish status will we be able to seek harmony among the disparate denominations of liberal Judaism. We cannot allow the ultra-Orthodox to dictate the definition of a Jewish individual, but we also cannot allow ourselves to be fractured by our own differing definitions of Jewish status. There has been far too much controversy and pain for this situation to continue unresolved.

The Jewish community has a responsibility all members of our people based on the dictum kol yisrael areivim zeh bazeh (All Israel is responsible one for another). This value is especially true when it comes to the elderly among us. As our community members become elderly it becomes more expensive to provide important social services for them and many of them do not have relatives to share in this burden.

It become our responsibility to take care of them. This is certainly true with aging Holocaust survivors. We have a special responsibility for them. The question above asks if we are doing enough. Most likely we could never do enough for these people who are witnesses to the worst period of Jewish history. Their lives have been shaped by what they endured in the middle of the last century and we have to be especially concerned about their wellbeing, health and safety.

Question: One of Purim’s (reportedly) most beloved traditions is to drink “until you can’t tell the difference between evil Haman and righteous Mordechai.” Is drunkenness really a Jewish value? What about for those who have issues with drinking (nazirites, and recovering alcoholics, for example)? [Administrators note: A related question about drinking on Purim is found in the JVO database at http://www.jewishvaluesonline.org/question.php?id=364]

There are many examples of Judaism using wine for sacremental purposes. The most common is to sanctify a holy day with the Kiddush blessing for the Sabbath and Jewish holidays. It is also used to bring sanctity to the Jewish wedding over the blessings of Erusin (betrothal) and Nesu'in (the seven wedding blessings). However in every case that wine (the fruit of the vine) is required, grape juice is always a valid alternative.

The Jewish rabbinic tradition seeks to encourage the moderate use of alcohol, particularly wine, within the frameworks provided by existing commandments which require one to be happy in their fulfillment (Purim, Simchat Torah, etc.). In addition to Shabbat, holidays, and life-cycle events, there are other cases when drinking alcohol is customary. A small amount of vodka or whiskey is a legitimate preparation for celebrating a l'chayim, celebrating a siyyum (completion) of Torah or Talmud study, toasting the Sabbath day in a kiddush club, listening to the teachings of the rabbi (vort) and groom (chatan's tisch), and marking a significant achievement or life-cycle event.

The Jewish tradition also explains that one who is drunk or is known to have problems with alcohol (an alcoholic) is not an acceptable witness, cannot be a judge, or lead the community in prayer. Even a small amount of alcohol invalidates one from teaching Torah. In Bereshit Rabbah it says, "Wine has two characteristics, one opposite the other. A little is good and a lot is hard. Wine will make a person‚s heart happy. A little wine opens the heart to Torah and too much leads to sin and idolatry."

Rabbi David Golinkin, a Conservative rabbi in Israel addresses drunkeness on Purim in a teshuvah (legal response):

The Jewish people throughout history has always opposed drunkenness. That is the message of the stories of Noah and Lot (Genesis 9 and 19) as well as of the book of Proverbs (23:30-35). According to our Sages, Nadav and Avihu were killed because they were drunk (Leviticus Rabbah 20:9 and parallels), drunkenness leads to forbidden sexual relations (Ketubot 65a and Numbers Rabbah 10:3) and "there is nothing that causes a person greater lamentation than wine" (Sanhedrin 70b).

As a result, it is difficult to fathom the primary Talmudic source related to drinking on Purim (Megillah 7b): "Rava said: a person must get drunk on Purim until he cannot distinguish between 'cursed be Haman' and 'blessed be Mordechai'. Rabbah and R. Zeira made a Purim feast together. They got drunk. Rabbah stood up and killed R. Zeira. On the morrow, Rabbah prayed for him and revived him. The following year, Rabbah said to him: ‘Come, let us celebrate the Purim feast together!’ R. Zeira replied: ‘Miracles don't happen every day!’"

Rava's statement begs an explanation. R. David Abudraham explained that the Sages required drinking on Purim since all of the miracles in the days of Ahashverosh occurred at drinking parties (Sefer Abudraham, pp. 209-210). On the other hand, Rava was a vintner (Berakhot 56a and Bava Metzia 73a) and clearly liked to drink wine (Pesahim 107b). As for the strange story, Rabbi H. Z. Reines suggests that the entire episode is a Purim joke (Hadoar 5737, p. 266)!

Whatever the simple meaning is, it is clear that the poskim (halakhic authorities) throughout the generations felt very uncomfortable with Rava's demand to get drunk on Purim, and therefore each posek tried to circumvent the requirement.

For those who choose to imbibe on Purim, it is advisable that they do so in moderation. Becoming drunk in the synagogue can lead to embarassment, as well as others losing respect for you. It is the responsibility of the community to ensure that alcohol consumption on Purim (or any other day of the year) is done responsibly. Just as there is a desginated driver program in place at bars, clubs, and sporting events, the same program should be implemented in synagogues.

Additionally, those who suffer from alcoholism should avoid any amount of alcohol on Purim as Pikuach Nefesh (saving one's soul) is more important than drinking alcohol on the holiday. The bottom line is that drunkeness is not a Jewish value. It adds to the joy of celebrations like Purim, but it must be handled responsibly.

Rabbi Jason Miller is a blogger, educator, kosher supervisor, and tech expert. He is an alumnus of Clal's Rabbis Without Borders program and the STAR Foundation's PEER fellowship. He blogs at Blog.RabbiJason.comand tweets at @rabbijason. He is president of Access Computer Technology, an IT and social media company in Michigan. He won a Jewish Influencer Award during Social Media Week in NY in 2012.

Question: What happens at an "unveiling ceremony"? Are there prayers said, and by whom?
[Admin. note: Another related question on unveilings can be found on the JVO website at: http://www.jewishvaluesonline.org/question.php?id=134]

As my colleage Rabbi Schwab explained, there is no actual legal requirement to hold an unveiling ceremony or dedication of the grave marker (tombstone, matzeva). It has become a widely followed custom however and is another example of k'vod hamet (respect for the dead).

There are various opinions as to when the unveiling should take place, but this is also governed by how long it takes the monument company to produce the headstone. In all cases, the unveiling shouldn't take place until after the shloshim period (30 days since death). In America, many families wait until it is close to the one-year anniversary until erecting the headstone and having the unveiling ceremony.

A rabbi is not needed at an unveiling ceremony, but some families may choose to ask their rabbi to officiate. The service is comprised of some readings (in Hebrew, English or both), some psalms, and a special recitation when the headstone is uncovered. The traditional memorial prayer (El Malei Rachamim) is recited. The ceremony is concluded with the Mourner's Kaddish.

Any family members or friends may lead the group in the readings. It is tradition for the immediate family members to recite the Mourner's Kaddish but some follow the custom that it is recited by everyone present.

To receive a custom made Unveiling Booklet, contact me at rabbijam(@)gmail.com.

Thank you for your question. First of all, let me translate "marat ayin". "Marit ayin" literally translates as "the appearance of the eye" and refers the presumption that something is one way when it's really the other. An example would be if someone were in a non-kosher restaurant wearing a yarmulke. If a kosher observant individual walked by the restaurant and saw a patron wearing a yarmulke inside, they might assume the restaurant is kosher.

With food items that are actually kosher, but resemble non-kosher foods the opposite is true. One might see you eating a soy product that looks like bacon or sausage and presume you're eating non-kosher food when in actually you are not. I don't believe there is an ethical or moral problem eating kosher food that looks like non-kosher food. If someone is concerned about what you're eating, then they should ask.

Chefs have become very creative in recent time and can now create kosher food items that look and taste like iconic non-kosher dishes like shrimp and bacon. There are also many packaged food items on the market that resemble non-kosher items like soy bacon (Fake+Bacon="Facon"), soy sausage links and soy sausage patties. The Jewish Theological Seminary's cafeteria routinely serves fake pepperoni on pizza, and an assortment of other soy products that look like the non-kosher food item. Everyone knows the Jewish Theological Seminary kitchen and cafeteria are strictly kosher so there is no presumption of wrongdoing. In fact, it is not much different than putting cheese on a veggie burger or putting non-dairy cheese on a real hamburger (or other meat sandwich as is done in the kosher Subway franchises).

Question: When placing a Menorah in a high rise lobby are there Jewish rules that need adhering to? Should it stand alone? Does it need to be placed on a white cloth? There seem to be some discrepancies among the residents in our building.

That is a wonderful question and one that requires both a response from a values perspective as well as one from a Halachic, or Jewish legal, perspective.

Many apartment buildings try to decorate the lobby in a way that all residents and guests will feel represented. Most will agree that this is a good value. Some may cynically chalk it up to political correctness and ask where the lobby's Purim decorations were in March.

If an apartment building is going to display a chanukiyah (a menorah has seven branches and isn't used on Hanukkah) in the lobby and it's being lit (or turned on in the case of an electric model) by a non-Jew then there are no rules that must be followed. If it is being lit by a Jewish person then the rules of lighting the chanukiyah should be followed. In most cases, the chanukiyah in an apartment building lobby is for display purposes only and is being displayed as a symbol of the Jewish holiday. Nevertheless, the lit (or illuminated) candles should represent the correct number of days of the holiday.

There is no requirement for non-Jews to light the Hanukkah lights and thus if a non-Jewish individuals who works in the apartment is charged with the task of illuminating the lobby's chanukiyah, no blessing should be said.

Question: I have conflicting values. I send my children to a Jewish day
school because I value the religious education they receive, but I feel guilty for not supporting the public schools beyond my tax dollars.

First of all, I'd like to commend you for sending your children to a Jewish day school. This is a serious financial commitment as day school tuition has risen significantly in the past decade while economic hardships have grown for middle class Jewish families. I also want to commend you for recognizing that the public school system still depends on your support (beyond your tax dollars).

Jewish families choose the day school option for many different reasons. Just because you send your children to a Jewish day school, however, does not mean that you can't support your local public school(s) by volunteering your time, donating to school functions and after-school activities, and speaking positively about the school in your community. You can also encourage your children to participate in community sports teams and other programs so they become friends with the neighborhood children who attend the public school.

Finally, in addition to your tax dollars you should use your voting right to help ensure the best people are in leadership positions on the school board. There are many other ways you can support the public schools in your area and I believe that doing so is a strong Jewish value.

This is the most frequent question I get as a rabbi. At some point the mitzvah (commandment) of kindling the Shabbat candles became a beautiful ritual in which the whole family participates. In traditional circles this is one of three mitzvot that is specially reserved for women (the others are taking challah -- separating a portion of dough -- and niddah -- sexual separation during a woman's menstrual period and ritual immersion afterwards).

Traditionally, if a woman is available then she is the one who should light the Shabbat candles. I've noticed that even in many egalitarian homes, it is still the woman (or women) who take ownership of this mitzvah. Truthfully, it is a mitzvah that either a man or a woman can perform.

The lighting of the Shabbat candles brings in the holiness of the Sabbath day. An interesting fact about this blessing is that typically, a blessing must be said before the act is done. However, since the blessing over the Shabbat candles is also the act which initiates Shabbat, it is forbidden to light a fire after the blessing is said [because of the restriction against kindling a flame on Shabbat]. Thus, one lights the candles and then covers one's eyes while saying the blessing. When the eyes are opened, the already lit candles are enjoyed for the first time, as it were, therefore both completing the blessing and not violating Shabbat.

I think that it is nice for the entire family to gather around as the candles are lit and blessed, however, it is also important to not kindle a flame once Shabbat has commenced. Therefore, it is better to light the candles before Shabbat even if the entire family isn't together at the time.

While it is a beautiful custom to all light together, it should be done at the appropriate time and while that might not always be the most convenient time for all members of the family it remains a strict law in Judaism. Now, in terms of a nice ritual to perform for when your husband arrives home I would encourage you to come up with something meaningful to do in order to begin the Shabbat together.

I pray that even when it isn't possible for you to light candles with your husband, you still make the Shabbat a holy and spiritually meaningful tme for your family each week. Have a Shabbat Shalom!

Question: If a newborn or child is adopted by Jewish parents and the child is raised a Jew, is the person Jewish since there is no way of knowing if the child came from a Jewish woman?
Or, as in my case, the birth mother was not Jewish at time of the birth but did later convert once she married the Jewish birth father?

These are important questions since they have to do with Jewish identity. In the Jewish world there is not consensus on the controversial question of "Who's a Jew?" (that's why it's controversial).

What I would advise is that since you know you were born to a "birth mother" who was not Jewish at the time of your birth, you should go through a traditional conversion. Even though you were raised Jewish by your adoptive parents, as a matter of course I would advocate a formal conversion.

Identity in our religion is not merely based on belief (or how one was raised), but on the religious status of the mother (in the case of the Reform and Reconstructionist movements the religious status of the father or the mother).

Literally speaking, the term "glatt" is a Yiddish word that means smooth (it is called "chalak" in Hebrew). It is used most commonly as a kosher designation referring to the lungs of an animal. If the animal's lungs were smooth and free of any adhesion that would render it non-kosher, the animal is designated as "glatt."

The term only applies to kosher animals whose meat can be eaten (not fowl or fish). Therefore, kosher food like chicken, fish, lamb, or dairy products can never be "glatt." The term has come to mean "kosher to a higher level" leading many people to erroneously think that non-beef food items can be "glatt." In fact, I have been asked if pizza that I certify as kosher is "glatt" to which I responded that if they're concerned about the melted cheese atop the pizza being smooth, they should be fine.

Rabbi Ari Z. Zivotofsky wrote an insightful explanation of why the "glatt" designation is important. He explains, "In colloquial discourse treif refers to anything that is not kosher. The technical definition of treifa is based on Exodus 22:30 (Do not eat meat from an animal torn [treifa] in the field) and refers to an animal with any of a specific group of physical defects that are detailed in the Talmud. Examples of these "defects," which often go far beyond the health inspection of the USDA, include certain lesions, lacerations, broken limbs, missing or punctured organs, or the result of an attack by a larger animal. Such defects can occur in and thereby render both animals and fowl treif. Because most of these defects are uncommon, it may be assumed that most animals are healthy and hence there is no requirement to inspect every animal for them. An exception is the lung of an animal, on which adhesions and other problems may develop. While these problems are not common, they do occur more frequently than other treifot. Their relative prevalence led the rabbis to mandate that the lungs of every animal be examined, both manually while still in its natural position in the animal, and visually following its removal from the thoracic cavity."

Most types of adhesion on the animal would make the animal a treifa and therefore forbidden to be eaten by a Jewish person. Rabbi Moshe Isserles (the Ramah) allows for a method of peeling and testing many types of adhesions, which results in many more animals being designated as kosher. This leniency allows kosher observant individuals to eat meat that is not from a "glatt" animal, but one whose adhesions had been checked through peeling and testing. Isserles ruled only for Ashkenazi Jews, but Rabbi Yosef Karo did not rule that this was acceptable practice and therefore his Sephardic followers only eat "glatt" kosher meat.

This led to the "glatt" designation being considered a stringency that the pious would uphold. The misconception is that if meat is not "glatt" then it is not kosher. In truth, non-glatt meat that has been thoroughly inspected is considered fully kosher for Ashkenazic Jews. There are kosher certification agencies that only certify meat that is "glatt". Those who only eat "glatt" meat are known as mehadrin, meaning "embellished." Maintaining a kosher diet leaves froom for leniencies and stringencies. One who follows a more stringent level of kosher observance is considered to have embellished God's commandments and thus is said to be keeping kosher l'mehadrin. The terms "glatt" and "mehadrin" have come to describe a higher level of kosher status, but has also been misapplied to such things as water.

These terms can colloquially mean "extra strict supervision," but it is important that the actual definition is lost along the way. Rabbi Reuven Hammer of Jerusalem has written about the fact that this stringency of the pious seems to apply to kosher food, but seldom to matters of ethics. He writes, "If people want to be extra strict with themselves, that is their right, but I often wonder why this extra strictness seems to be confined to ritual mitzvot rather than to ethical ones. Whenever I hear about Glatt I am reminded of [Rabbi Abraham Joshua] Heschel's comment that we need a mashgiah [kosher supervisor] not just for food for other things such as lashon ha-ra – gossip – as well.

So, the bottom line is that "glatt" means smooth and refers to the lungs of animals like cows. When its applied to other food it is being misapplied, but colloquially means "kosher to a higher standard."

Rabbi Jason Miller is the founder and director of Kosher Michigan, a kosher certification agency. KM is online at http://koshermichigan.com.

Question: At what point should parents give up their efforts to “control” how their children observe religion? For example, if a child decides they do not want to attend weekly Shabbat services or wants to stop wearing a kippah, what should the parents' response be?

This is a challenging question because the source material on this subject is from a time in which a child's recognized maturity level in society was at a much different age than it is today. Men and women were getting married and considered adults at munch younger ages than today.

Jewish sources on this subject point to the age of bar mitzvah (13 for a boy) as the time when he is free to make religious decisions, but a girl had to wait until she married out of her parents' home. In our society today it is common for children to be considered "grown up" and capable of making some personal decisions on their own when they leave the home for college. However, many young people are staying at home during the college years or moving back into their parents' home after college thereby making the age at which these decisions should be allowed (or tolerated) a bit confusing.

From an ethics perspective, it seems logical that as our children age and mature we discuss religious observance with them on the level most appropriate to their comprehension. Forcing religious observance on children is likely to backfire, but demonstrating the positive aspects of such religious activities as attending Shabbat services at synagogue or temple can be rewarding. In terms of wearing a kippah, there may be times when it is mandated (Hebrew School, Day School, in the synagogue, etc.) however if a child doesn't wish to wear it on a daily basis then a conversation is in order. Certain rituals of a personal nature (wearing tzitzit or a kippah) may best be left up to a mature child, but synagogue attendence might not be optional.

Negotiating with children is part of parenting and when it comes to certain religious decisions like attending Shabbat services there is likley room for compromise. For example, some parents might find it agreeable to allow children to bring a favorite (Shabbat and syangogue appropriate) toy or book along with them. No parent should force religious observance on the child to the point where the child becomes rebelious and resentful. Judaism should be seen as a fun way of life with rewarding activities. If your child decides they don't want to attend weekly Shabbat services, see if there might be a youth group program they could join to meet other children their age who attend each week. No matter what decision you ultimately allow your child to make (or make in cooperation with them), be certain that the lines of communication remain open. That is the most important thing.

Question: My neighbor strongly objects to my planting of a specfic grass type (Zoysia grass) saying that it will eventually overtake his lawn and he does not want Zoysia grass. Is there any Jewish moral reason why I must be considerate of his feelings?

There are certain relationships that are extremely important to maintain. Being a good neighbor is of paramount importance from a values perspective.

Like in a marriage, good communication among neighbors is essential because there are many things that a neighbor could do that would have negative impact on your quality of life. For instance, a neighbor playing loud music will be disruptive to you. A neighbor's kid playing basketball in the early hours of the morning will be detrimental to your sleep. If your neighbor doesn't maintain the upkeep of his house it could affect your property value in negative ways.

In the case of your neighbor strongly objecting to you planting a certain type of grass, I would caution you from doing so. Legally speaking, you are likely within your rights to plant this type of grass. If and when it grows onto his property and overtakes his lawn, he will have a legal case against you. However, why not work to maintain good neighborly relations and acquiesce to his objection. I'm sure you can find an alternative grass type to plant that will look nice, but will not be so unruly as to overtake his lawn.

Jewish law is full of property rights and case law involving harm done by one neighbor to another. But in terms of Jewish values, I would recommend taking the moral high road and being a good neighbor.

Question: I recently offered to help at the house of a close relative that was sitting shiva for her mother. Both non-kosher food trays and kosher food trays were being brought into the house. The people sitting shiva were not shomer kashrut. I felt uncomfortable with the situation as I didn’t want to serve the people sitting shiva from the non-kosher food trays, and I also didn’t want to make them feel uncomfortable or embarrass them during their shiva period. Would it be permissible for me to serve them food if they requested food from the non-kosher food tray? Are there less stringencies if the food tray was dairy versus meat?

You raise a question in which on the surface there appears to be competing mitzvot. On the one hand, you want to fulfill the mitzvah of nichum aveilim - comforting the mourners. On the other hand, you are hesitant to violate the mitzvah of benefiting from non-kosher food.

I contend that there are existing prohibitions forbidding any benefit being derived from the mixture of dairy and meat together (and you derive benefit from serving this non-kosher food to the mourners because you benefit from fulfilling the mitzvah of comforting the mourners). A potential solution to this problem is to see if there are other "shivah helpers" available to serve the dinner, then you could volunteer to only help serve dessert or clean up after the meal. In doing so, you would still be comforting the mourners but not actually giving them non-kosher food.

It is never appropriate, but I'm sure you would agree that a shivah is most certainlynot the place to embarrass the mourners by explaining you don't want to serve them non-kosher food. They don't keep kosher and they likely aren't going to start during the shiva, so it's really the best solution to not serve the non-kosher food if you're uncomfortable, but to find other ways to help out during the shivah.

In terms of the difference between meat and dairy, I don't think that is a question of Jewish values. Rather, it can be viewed in the context of either halakhah (Jewish Law) or general communal practice. In both cases, the Jewish community is more stringent with kashrut observance when it comes to meat products. So, while it's not a value question, I do think there is a difference between your discomfort serving non-kosher meat and cheese together versus serving the mourners tuna fish, egg salad, or cream cheese on a bagel that comes from a non-kosher establishment.

I hope that is helpful and I salute you for your commitment to helping bring comfort to the mourners while also wanting to feel comfortable when it comes to your kashrut observance.

Question: What is the Jewish view about killing Osama bin Laden? Should Jews joyously celebrate his death? Assuming he was in fact unarmed should the Seals have taken him prisoner in acccordance with Jewish values?

The killing of Osama Bin Laden by the Seals was justified whether he was armed or not. Bin Laden was the number one wanted terrorist on the U.S. Most Wanted list and there was a clear order of "shoot to kill." The U.S. had very good intelligence that there were future terrorist attacks being planned by Al Qaeda and taking out the mastermind was in line with the value of pikuach nefesh (saving other souls). This intelligence was confirmed with the material the Seals took from Bin Laden's compound which demonstrated that he was indeed planning future attacks. Had he been unarmed, taking him hostage would have been a poor strategic choice and would likely have led to more deaths of innocent civilians around the world. Generally, it is not a Jewish value to shoot an unarmed individual to death, but I think that the majority of fair-minded people will reason that this was a true exception to the rule.

Now on to a completely separate matter: Should Jews joyously celebrate his death? I don't think it's necessary to separate out Jews in this question. Therefore, I'll answer whether it was appropriate for Americans to celebrate the way some did and what the Jewish take on that is from a value perspective. I think that what we witnessed at such places as Ground Zero, outside the White House and at Times Square in New York City was a nation's collective relief and celebration at the death of a villain who unleashed such havoc on our country. I don't believe that most of those celebrants in the streets were celebrating the death of a human being, but rather some measure of closure from the horrific 9/11 event. Americans singing and dancing in the streets, jubilant over the killing of Osama Bin Laden, brings to mind the celebrations seen in the Arab world after the deaths of innocent civilians. However, the difference of course is that Americans were peacefully celebrating a victory on the "War on Terror" when a criminal was killed, while Muslim extremist have celebrated the deaths of innocents. The bottom line is that our celebration should have been measured because we don't want the rest of the world to think we are celebrating a killing and we also don't want to raise the ire of Al Qaeda tempting them to avenge Bin Laden's death.

So, while there may be those who found it unethical for the Seals to have killed an unarmed Bin Laden, I believe that this isolated instance was in accordance with Jewish values. Further, the United States does not have a reputation as celebrating in the streets after criminals are killed. This, again, was an isolated instance in which the collective emotions of New Yorkers and others around our country led them to celebrate what felt like a victory in the "War on Terror."

Question: Can you explain the value behind various Kosher certifications? Do all of them take the same things into consideration? If so - why so many? How did a commandment get politicized? And if not - what are the various considerations?

In her recent book, "Kosher Nation: Why More and More of America's Food Answers to a Higher Authority," author Sue Fishkoff explains that in 1981 there were only eighteen kosher certification agencies, but by early 2009 there were almost one thousand separate rabbis and agencies offering kosher supervision. That's a lot of different symbols for the kosher observant consumer to recognize in the grocery store aisles.

Why so many kosher symbols? Because kosher certification, like it or not, has become a business. The Torah commands us to light a minimum of two candles before Shabbat and holidays. Candlestick holders for this purpose have become a business too. In fact, there are many shopkeepers and Judaica merchants around the world who make their living from the sale of ritual objects that allow Jewish people to fulfill the mitzvot. That's sort of how I look at kosher certification agencies. These agencies, with their kosher certification symbols, exist so that Jewish people can fulfil the laws of kashrut (the Jewish dietary laws). Some are in the business simply because they want to increase the amount of kosher food items available and dining options for those who observe kashrut. Others are in it to make money -- to profit from these commandments.

There are so many kosher certification agencies because of two reasons: One, there are so many different standards of kosher observance that it naturally necessitates a wide array of hekhshers (kosher certifications); and, two, the industry allows for it (the law of supply and demand).

In general, people like to know that their food has been supervised, both in its production and in its packaging. It is reassuring to the consumer that humans have observed the process and determined that it meets set safety and health standards. This is true for the kosher consumer as well. Those who maintain a kosher diet need to rest assured that reliable individuals have determined that the food item was produced and packaged in compliance with the kosher laws.

There are many interpretations of the kosher laws. There are also many different levels of kosher observance. This is why there are so many different hekhshers. I think it is important for consumers to know which rabbi (or which agency) has put its imprimatur on the label. In my opinion, so much of hashgacha (kosher certification) is based on trust. But it is necessary for consumers to know precisely who says something is kosher before they know if they can trust them. What I don't like is when the kosher consumer determines that a specific hekhsher cannot be trusted for superficial reasons (where that rabbi received ordination, how that rabbi looks, where the rabbis kids go to school, etc.). This merely politicizes the kosher certification process leading to higher prices and a cynical public (hence the poor reputation of some local kashrut agencies).

The mitzvah of kashrut got so politicized for several reasons. First and foremost, it became a business and that means that money is involved. Mashgichim who rely on their hashgacha work for parnasa (livelihood) are vulnerable to corruption. Also, communities are concerned about kosher standards and worried that everyone be on the same page. For instance, a family may be comfortable purchasing food items that have been certified by a particluar kosher agency, but refuse to do so because they worry that other families will no longer eat in their home (a dreadful scenario in insular communities). There is also an unstated contest within many Jewish communities to "out-Frum" (religious one-upmanship) others by constantly raising the bar of kosher standards. This only leads to increased pricing of kosher products as well as confusion on the part of consumers.

The kosher laws, based on the explanations in the Talmud, existed to keep Jews from eating, and thereby socializing, with non-Jews. The irony is that today's kosher laws in practice actually keep different Jewish communities from eating with each other. And in some case, the humratization (amending the kosher laws with increased strictures) of the kosher laws keep Jews within the same community from feeling comfortable enough to eat together.

Some of the politicization in the kosher world is likely inevitable. In an increasingly polarized Jewish community, these standards are in place so kosher observant individuals can be assured of the kosher status of what they consume. However, I often wonder how many of today's kosher standards would be foreign to Moses. Would he be able to trace back the thousand hekhshers, the super-kosher designations of Glatt and Mehadrin, or the strictures on the consumption of leafy vegetables to the principles he outlined in the Torah to our ancestors? I'm not sure that even Moses could have predicted what a politicized business venture these kosher laws would turn into.

Question: When buying a new car, I know it is the right thing to do to think of environmental concerns - miles per gallon of gas, CO2, etc...But are there any Jewish directives here? A What Would Moses Do kind of thing?

Caring for our environment is most certainly a Jewish value and I believe strongly that while there are many factors to consider when purchasing (or leasing) a new car, Jewish values should be one of them.

Cars today are manufactured much differently than they once were. Likewise, in the 21st century there are many opportunities to select cars that are better for the environment. We can find cars that are luxurious and look nice, but also are safe and efficient. More efficient engines, transmissions, and better aerodynamics dramatically increase the fuel economy of our cars. Considering these environmental concerns (gas mileage, CO2 emissions, etc.) is definitely a Jewish value if we are to care about our planet.

The top Jewish environmental organization is COEJL, which seeks to protect the environment as a Jewish concern. COEJL has a Clean Car Campaign whose motto is "Driven by Values."

On the Clean Car Campaign website, COEJL explains:

America burns 8 million barrels of oil every day just to fuel our cars, SUVs, and trucks. Where this oil comes from and where it goes are both major problems. Much of our oil comes from the Middle East – even from such nations as Iraq – and our dependence on this oil helps to fuel the causes of war and terrorism. Our dependence on imported oil also results in pressure to drill for oil in environmentally threatened places.

Where does the oil go after it is burned? Into the atmosphere – where it is causing global warming and other air pollution problems. In fact, every gallon of gas burned releases twenty pounds of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere!

This problem is getting worse. The average fuel economy of American vehicles is now at its lowest level since 1980! However, raising fuel economy standards for new cars, SUVs and other light trucks to an average of 40 miles per gallon (mpg) over the next 10 years would save nearly 2 million barrels per day (mbd) in 2012 and nearly 4 mbd by 2020 -- more oil per day than we now import from the Persian Gulf. This responsible step would save consumers billions of dollars at the gas pump and slash heat-trapping carbon dioxide emissions that cause global warming.

When we decide which car we will drive, we must consider the Jewish value of stewardship. We believe that we were partners with God in the creation of the world; and, we therefore must also do our part to protect the environment that we will bequeath to our children and grandchildren. If we drive cars (or SUVs) that are gas guzzlers and have high CO2 emission levels, we will not be good stewards. Rather, we will be contributing to global warming, which threatens to harm the planet’s poor and vulnerable. To do this is to be irresponsible.

We might not all choose to drive hybrid vehicles (full disclosure: I don't drive a hybrid), but that doesn't mean we can't do our part to help protect our fragile environment when we travel. If you're not traveling far and it's nice out, ride a bike or walk. Carpool with others to save gas. And certainly look for cars that get good gas mileage. Most important, we must remember the moral directive of bal tashchit and not waste resources. Letting our car idle is in violation of bal tashchit because it is wasting gas and it is destructive to the environment. (With gas prices currently so high, I'm not sure who would want to let their car idle anyway.)

I'm not sure what kind of car Moses would drive, but I'm certain that we can all consider the Jewish value of being good stewards to our Earth when we buy a new car.

I agree with my colleague, Rabbi Rackover, that this ethical question must be answered more from "the gut" than from the bookshelves of halacha (Jewish law). There's no question that adultery is forbidden by halacha; after all, it is one of the Ten Commandments. And while a married individual flirting may not expressly be considered "cheating," it certainly can lead one into unethical territory.

If an individual is single (not in a committed relationship) and has knowledge that the other individual on the Internet (in a chat room for example) is single, then flirtatious advances are acceptable and part of the human psyche. However, if one individual is in a committed relationship then the flirting is unethical in that it presents the illusion of sexual interest. Flirting sends messages and those messages might not always be clear. Thus, the Jewish concept of g'neivat da'at (deception) comes into play. Flirting often informs the other party that there is interest in pursuing a relationship further and if that entails adultery, it is sinful to even begin that form of communication.

In Judaism, we erect proverbial fences to keep ourselves far from sin. Thus, while flirting on the Internet (or in real-life for that matter) is not expressly forbidden by Jewish law, it should be considered forbidden because of what it leads to. So, a married individual envisioning a fence surrounding the bond of marriage is wise when navigating in Cyberspace.

It is normal for humans to recognize beauty and to be attracted to other individuals. However, acting on that attraction with flirtatious advances (in real-life or on the Web) is not a Jewish value because it can be deceitful and lead to a forbidden act. It is always safer to flirt with one's own spouse.

Question: Given the inequality in Jewish Law regarding marriage, is it better to just have a civil marriage and avoid a rabbinic wedding altogether? What advantages does a Jewish wedding have? What can my rabbi do to guard my (the woman's) position and assure safety and security in this type of union?

When I read your question, I was reminded of the recent TIME magazine cover story, "Who Needs Marriage." TIME used statistics from a Pew study that shows less couples are opting for marriage these days. My sense is that even if the traditional marriage as outlined in the ketubah (Jewish wedding contract) and the Talmud is imbalanced, that is not the type of marriage we advocate for today. No relationship between two people is ever perfectly 50/50, but that is a wonderful goal to have and one I encourage couples to strive for.

For me, one of the best parts of being a rabbi is the experience of officiating at a wedding between two wonderful people. I have been fortunate to stand under the chuppah with many beautiful couples and when I do, I am reminded of how meaningful, spiritual, and most of all holy marriage is.

In Hebrew, there are two words for a wedding. Chatuna is used to describe the actual wedding (the ceremony and the reception following). However, the second word describes the actual ceremony. That word is kiddushin and it comes from the Hebrew word kadosh -- holy. The Jewish wedding is a holy event. A couple may choose to live together, even call each other a partner, but without the actual religious act of marriage, their relationship is not a holy relationship.

There are ways to guard the woman's status should the marriage dissolve and that can be done with an clause in the actual ketubah that was authored by Rabbi Saul Lieberman, known as the Lieberman Clause. This statement in the ketubah prevents the bride from ever being an agunah - a chained woman whose husband refuses her a get (Jewish bill of divorce).

Marriage may be less popular than it once was, but couples who stand under the chuppah with a rabbi, find that their union is blessed according to the ancient laws of our people.

Question: Some of Bernie Madoff's property is up for auction. While selling his wares to raise money to repay those he scammed is a good thing, isn't it kind of unsettling for people to want to own things formerly used by a fraudster? What does Judaism say about this?

In Judaism we believe that there is a holiness attached to material things. For instance, in the Talmud (Mas. Megillah) there is a long discussion about what can be purchased with the proceeds after selling certain things that possess holiness like chumashim (Torah books) or Torah scrolls; even the bricks from a torn down synagogue. Ultimately, the sages reason that we must elevate our holiness. Thus, proceeds from the sale of items of holiness can only be used to purchase items that are of an even higher grade of holiness.

So, while there certainly may be the "unsettling" factor when someone purchases material possessions that once belonged to Bernie Madoff, there is also the fact that the holiness value will increase. For instance, if Bernie Madoff used his office desk to conduct fraudulent business transactions that milked unsuspecting people out of their financial portfolios and someone now buys that desk and uses it to write self-help books, write checks to charitable organizations, or to create beautiful and inspiring works of art, then that is an increase in the utility and value of the material good. Additionally, one could purchase some of Bernie Madoff's property on auction and then sell it for a profit, donating the proceeds to charity. That is certainly a positive value.

If you're asking about the karma factor of Madoff's property, I don't think Judaism places a value on that concept. The closest thing I can think of in Judaism is the superstition of not taking food out of a shiva house. I've also heard the Jewish superstition of not wearing the shoes of a deceased person. These seem like bubbemeisas (old wive's tales)to me and if someone thinks it would be odd or unsettling to have a piece of furniture in their home that was once owned by Bernie Madoff, then they shouldn't buy it.

Jon Stewart's well attended "Rally to Restore Sanity" took place a month ago on the Mall in Washington D.C. The fact that it took place on Shabbat afternoon kept many rabbis and other Jewish leaders from encouraging attendance, but by all accounts it was still heavily attended by Jewish people. Of the estimated 250,000 in the crowd, many Jews held signs in Hebrew and proclaiming such biblical verses as "Only Justice Shall Thou Pursue." Supporters of organizations like the New Israel Fund, Jewish Funds for Justice and the ultra-liberal group J-Street were at the rally in full force. The rally even had a faux religious element to it when former Saturday Night Live character "Father Guido Sarducci" delivered the invocation at the beginning.

Before addressing whether Judaism has a path for achieving sanity, let's try to determine if Jon Stewart's rally actually achieved this goal? Staged right before the midterm elections, the host of Comedy Central's "The Daily Show" and his crew used their typical wit and satire to lambaste the "mainstream media" for being overly partisan in their rhetoric. That is a fair claim, but as many point out Jon Stewart does not shy from partisan politics on his own show. I am a long-time fan of Jon Stewart, who turned 48 earlier this week, and I appreciate his comedic wit. Admittedly, I am part of an age demographic that, according to studies, gets our news from Jon Stewart, who labels his own show a "fake news show." I am not sure if his rally, in which he was joined by Stephen Colbert in character, actually restored any sanity in our nation's political arena.

In fact, I'm not sure that our nation is "insane" when it comes to politics. I believe that many Americans have become extremists when it comes to a whole host of issues -- political, economic, social, religious, etc. Perhaps Stewart's message should have been to encourage Americans not to be so extremely partisan on all issues, but to make judgments using sechel (Yiddish for common sense). Whether all Americans possess a level of sechel is for a different discussion.

An additional aim of the Rally to Restore Sanity was Stewart's message to treat each other with civility. And that is certainly a Jewish value. The opposite of sane is insane. And that strikes me as more of a clinical condition (think of an insane asylum). However, preaching civility and levelheadedness makes a lot of sense -- especially in an election year. It might just be a chicken/egg situation as to where the lack of civility began -- with the politicians campaigning for elected office or with the talking heads of the 24/7 news cycle. Either way, both camps need to change their tune. When I see the mudslinging campaign ads, I think of the message it sends to our nation's children. And when I hear the extremist messages coming from the cable news shows, it makes sense to me that our nation's young adults resort to a satirical late-night faux news show to get their news. We need a dose of comedic relief with the mishegas (Yiddish for craziness) of political reality.

So, does Judaism provide a path to achieving civility? There are actually several pathways our faith offers toward this goal. The Jewish discipline of ethical character development is called Mussar. The middot, or character traits Mussar focuses on certainly help individuals follow an upright path of civility. Pirkei Avot, or the Ethics of the Sages, a collection of mishnayot, features what I like to describe as the rabbis' greatest hits. Many of the teachings in this collection focus on human dignity and how one should act throughout the day. Justice is most certainly a strong Jewish ideal that has its roots in the Torah. All of these teachings encourage us to act civilly to each other and this should be no different when it comes to the political issues that so often divide us.

When Jon Stewart used the term "sanity" to describe his rally's objective, he was drawing a distinction between his aspirations and those of Fox News' Glenn Beck's earlier "Rally Restoring Honor." Yes, the way in which we talk to each other, treat each other, and draw misguided perceptions about each other's political views are insane -- it's crazy. But if we try to be more civil to each other and listen to each other's views without going to extremes (comparing politicians to Hitler is an extreme), we will undoubtedly restore some sanity. Judaism's many recipes for this can certainly help in the process toward tikkun -- restoring the civil discourse that has been broken.

Miracles, overcoming adversity and religious freedom are all important messages during Hanukkah. However, from a values standpoint I would have to focus on the theme of religious tolerance.

Putting aside the miracles of the Hanukkah story -- namely, the military victory over the Syrian army and the oil lasting for eight days -- I think it's important to focus on the hatred that was directed at the Jewish people. The desecration of the Temple and the intolerance toward the Jewish faith is a message for all humanity. During that time in history, the Jewish people were not allowed to practice their religion freely. They were discriminated against because of their beliefs.

The inherent value we can learn from this story is V'ahavta L'reiacha Kamocha, treat others as you wish to be treated. Religious freedom is of utmost importance. It is that value that, like the lights of the menorah, will shed much light during these dark days.

I’m not sure that practicing Jewish values can necessarily make someone happy, however, I think that when an individual has strong, positive values and puts those values into practice they will be a happier individual.

It’s also important to distinguish the difference between Jewish values and Jewish law (mitzvot). Following the commandments of the Torah will not make someone happy, although if they’re a believing Jew they may be kept from feeling guilty.

There are many factors that go in to making someone happy, including both nature and nurture as well as their psychological makeup. Some people may be unhappy, or even depressed, because of a situation or because of their DNA.

In his book Stumbling on Happiness, Harvard psychology professor Daniel Gilbert uses cutting-edge research to show that happiness is not really what or where we thought it was. We often think we know what will make us happy, but we really do not. We also say we are happy but oftentimes, as Gilbert explains, we are just misusing the term “happy.” So, it’s possible that when you raise the question: “How can Jewish values help us become happy?” you may have a different notion of happiness.

Possessing Jewish values might not take someone from unhappy to happy on the emotional continuum, but in general, I believe that following an ethical and value-driven lifestyle will add happiness to your life.

I do think that Judaism is a faith that places emphasis on happiness and I often tell Jewish people, teens and adults, that they should strive to find the Jewish pathways that will add both meaning and happiness to their lives. We recite these words from Psalms three times a day: Ashrei Yoshvei Veiteicha. They mean “Happy are those who dwell in Your (God’s) house.” Perhaps that should be our mantra in Judaism. Use Jewish values as a way to discover happiness.

To determine if Maimonides believed in an afterlife and resurrection of the dead, we need look no further than the Yigdal -- the hymn traditionally added to the Jewish liturgy at the beginning of the morning service and at the end of the evening service. Written by Daniel ben Yehudah Dayan, it is based on Maimonides' "Thirteen Articles of Faith."

In terms of a messianic period, the twelfth principal in Yigdal translates: "By the End of Days He will send our Messiah, to redeem those longing for final salvation."

The thirteenth and final principal in Yigdal translates: "God will revive the dead in His abundant kindness. Blessed forever is His praised name."

Based on that statement, it certainly appears that Rambam (the acronym used for Maimonides, standing for Rabbi Moses ben Maimon) was a proponent of the resurrection of the dead.

Judaism focuses much attention on repentance. In fact, Maimonides, the Spanish physician, philosopher, commentator, and legalist, devoted an entire section of his writings to Hilchot Teshuvah (the laws of repentance).

Jewish values help us repent by prioritizing teshuvah as a valid response to our sins. Perhaps the mitzvah (commandment) of seeking repentance works in tandem with the value of asking forgiveness. There are certain commandments that don't correspond to the system of values and we are simply commanded to do them. However, repentance is an accepted value throughout the world, irrespective of ones faith tradition.

Question: Israel received a lot of criticism for its handling of the flotilla #1. To what extent in Jewish law is Israel justified in balancing its security interests over allowing "humanitarian" supplies to reach Palestinians in Gaza?

The "flotilla incident," in which several ships attempted to run the Israeli blockade in the waters on the coast of Gaza, has fueled much animosity toward Israel. As a question of values, there are certainly competing values at play here. On the one hand, the Israeli army has a right to protect its citizenry and its troops. If a threat was detected on board the Turkish ship -- the Mavi Marmara -- then the Israeli army has a right to defend itself. This fact must be considered in evaluating the entire event. On the face of it, this was not simply about allowing "humanitarian" aid supplies into Gaza for Palestinians. That might have been the case of other vessels that attempted to break the blockade. However, the protesters on the Mavi Marmara had ulterior motives. And the Jewish value of pikuah nefesh (saving a life) should trump other issues.

It is important to mention that since the "flotilla incident," Israel has relaxed the rules of the Gaza blockade and now allows in many more items that are designated for humanitarian aid to the residents of Gaza. Yes, this was a public relations nightmare for Israel and her army, but from a values perspective the Army acted appropriately.

The U.S. military's policy of "Don't Ask Don't Tell" might have actually been the best policy at the time. However, the level of public inclusion for the GLBT community in our country has changed since Don't Ask Don't Tell was instituted under President Clinton. Like other groups that have been treated unfairly in our country (Blacks, women, the handicapped, etc.), over time the public has changed its treatment and its laws.

Don't Ask Don't Tell was a "safe" way for the military to acknowledge that there were gays and lesbians in its ranks, but not to make too much "noise" about the situation. Today, in 2010, our nation is much more accepting of the GLBT community and I believe the military will follow suit.

From a Jewish perspective as well, GLBT inclusion has taken great strides in the past two decades. As a value, it is imperative that the military update its policy to allow gays and lesbians to be as honest with their comrades as they are with themselves.

Policies change over time. Our society, like our religion, is not stagnate -- it is ever evolving. When I studied at the Conservative Movement's academic institution, the Jewish Theological Seminary (JTS), out-of-the-closet gays and lesbians were not allowed to matriculate there. If a student came out as gay, they were asked to leave the school. I guess you could say that JTS operated like the U.S. military -- Don't Ask Don't Tell. However, a ruling in December 2006 changed the Seminary's position and granted admission to avowed gays and lesbians.

First allow me to give my personal opinion on disciplining our own children. Whenever I see a parent disciplining his/her child in a way that makes me uncomfortable, it is usually because the parent is uncontrollably angry and stressed. It is never a good idea to discipline one's own child when you are not in control of your own emotions. Taking a few deep breaths before disciplining the child is a good value.

In Judaism, we have the concept of ben sorer u'moreh from the Torah. This the stubborn and rebellious child who, the Torah instructs, should be taken by his father to the center of town so that the citizens of the town can stone the boy to death. It is a troubling text for our modern sensibilities. However, what is so telling about this text is that the rabbinic commentators explain that this event never actually occurred. Perhaps it is in the text to scare young people into behaving, but that level of discipline never existed.

In our 21st century understanding of discipline, corporal punishment is not a value. There are sensible ways to discipline children including taking away material possessions or activities that are important to them (i.e., "no video games for two days" or "you will not be able to go to the movie theater with your friends." Using physical force to discipline children (whether students or one's own child) is not acceptable in our society. The spanking that was once allowed has become more controversial and I believe there are other (less demeaning and violent) ways to discipline children.

Question: Between soccer games, choir concerts and everything else that seems to accumulate by week’s end, my family doesn’t really have time for a “typical Shabbat.” What can we do to keep the Sabbath special?

As any rabbi will verify, soccer is the leading cause of Shabbat conflict in Jewish life. The fact that most suburban cities have soccer leagues on Saturday morning makes it difficult to get the entire family to synagogue. Other leagues hold their games on Sunday mornings making it a challenge to get the kids to Sunday school at the synagogue.

So, what's a family to do?

My recommendation is that if your family is going to prioritize soccer during part of the year (choose one soccer season), then you should prioritize Shabbat and synagogue (that is: "Jewish Life") during the rest of the year. So, if your kids play soccer every Saturday in the Fall, make a commitment to get to synagogue every Saturday morning during the Winter and Spring. You can also commit to attending Shabbat services on Friday nights along with a nice Shabbat dinner at home or at a friend's home. Many synagogues (Orthodox and Conservative) also have Shabbat afternoon services that may include a Seudat Shlishit (the third festive meal of Shabbat). That experience may lead you to discover a new community of friends.

Also, remember that Shabbat doesn't only take place in the synagogue or temple. You can create a Shabbat experience anywhere. Before shlepping the kids to soccer have them chose a "rose" and a "thorn" -- something great and something not so great that occurred during the week. Ask them what their prayer is for Shabbat.

And don't forget to bless your children every Friday night (no matter where you may find yourself). Soccer doesn't have to be a curse to Judaism. It should be a blessing too. It teaches our young people the importance of exercise, team play, and competition. But soccer shouldn't take over your family's life to the extent that Judaism takes a backseat.

Question: Is plastic (cosmetic) surgery permitted by the Torah? Is there a difference in the Jewish view between reparative and elective surgeries? Does Judaism approve of cosmetic procedures (not life saving, and not physically reconstructive) if it makes the person feel better?

Four teshuvot (legal responsa) have been written by Orthodox rabbis on the subject of cosmetic surgery and Halacha (Jewish law). They each present different approaches to the topic, but I will cover those first and then give my opinion from a Jewish values context.

Rabbi Chaim Jachter explains the teshuvot of several rabbis including Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, a Halachic authority in the Orthodox movement, who permitted a young woman experiencing difficulty finding a husband to undergo cosmetic surgery to improve her appearance. Feinstein permitted the surgery based on Maimonides' understanding of the prohibition of chavala (wounding in a degrading manner). In general, the Torah prohibits wounding another person (Deuteronomy 25:3), and the Talmud (Bava Kama 91a) states that this prohibition applies even to wounding oneself. Maimonides writes that this prohibition applies when it is performed “in a degrading manner.” Maimonides rules that an individual is forbidden to wound himself, but that if the wounding is done in a beneficial manner the prohibition of chavala -- to others or oneself -- does not apply. An individual may wound himself if it is done for his benefit.

Rav Waldenberg, a medical ethicist, categorically forbids all cosmetic surgeries, believing that the doctor's license to heal applies only to curing an illness and not to altering one’s appearance.

Rav Yitzchak Weisz focuses his teshuva on two issues: chavala and sakana (a dangerous situation). First, he explains that cosmetic surgery is not forbidden unless it is done in a degrading manner. However, Weisz believes that the danger involved in any surgery is of major concern. In an earlier responsum, he forbids undergoing any surgery unless it is necessary to save the patient’s life. Accordingly, he rules that one may not undergo surgery to remedy a problem that is not life-threatening.

Some rabbis, like Rabbi J. David Bleich, conclude that it cosmetic surgery is permissible in the case of great need (i.e., life-saving). There is also the category of the choleh, one who is considered to be sick. This category is broad enough, in my opinion, to include individuals who are suffering psychologically because of their outward appearance. If an individual is so emotionally distraught because of their appearance then I would consider this person to be a choleh (sick from depression). they should consult a physician (i.e., psychologist) for therapy and if it is determined that cosmetic surgery would make them feel better about themselves, then I believe that should be the value.

There are, of course, individuals in our society who become addicted to changing their physical appearance through cosmetic surgery (e.g., Joan Rivers, Heidi Montag, Michael Jackson, etc.) and that should be cautioned against. But if a person requires cosmetic surgery to improve their inner sickness, then I believe that is a Jewish value we should recognize.

THE VIEWS EXPRESSED IN ANSWERS PROVIDED HEREIN ARE THOSE OF THE INDIVIDUAL JVO PANEL MEMBERS, AND DO NOT
NECESSARILY REFLECT OR REPRESENT THE VIEWS OF THE ORTHODOX, CONSERVATIVE OR REFORM MOVEMENTS, RESPECTIVELY.